A&H

Open Age Two footed tackle

zarathustra

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
Forgive me refchat, for i have sinned

Had an incident in a game a few weeks ago, which has been playing on my mind as im almost positive i got it wrong.

A player jumps into a tackle with both feet, completely missing the man and the ball.

He missed the player with the ball so much he didnt even need to move out of the way to avaoid the tackle.

I didnt give anything and this certainly damaged my match control (with one player who wasnt involved in the challenge), and im sure i was wrong, what im not sure of is what the correct sanction should have been.

Obviously if hed taken out the player with the ball the it would have been a red for SFP.

What im not sure of is what the correct sanction should have been in this situation, im 99.9% certain i should have given a free kick, but if id done this should also be considering a card as well?
 
The Referee Store
Direct free kick and a caution judging by what you have said, with a very strong world along the lines of, had he been any closer to you or you to him then you would be going having a shower now so cut it out.
 
Did the challenge make the player with ball lose control or impede him in anyway? No...Quick shout advantage, play on..to show you recognise the foul...when ball goes out of play quick word in the ear of offender! If he impeded him or the player lost control I would IMHO give the freekick and yellow. However if it was as bad as you say then Advantage!
 
Thanks, i thought that might be the case.

I knew id dropped a bollock on this one, but its not something thats come up in one of my games before so i wasnt sure what the correct decision should have been.
 
A Freethinker said:
Did the challenge make the player with ball lose control or impede him in anyway? No...Quick shout advantage, play on..to show you recognise the foul...when ball goes out of play quick word in the ear of offender! If he impeded him or the player lost control I would IMHO give the freekick and yellow. However if it was as bad as you say then Advantage!
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don't agree with you on this. It comes across as far, far too lenient for such a challenge. After reading the OP, to my eyes this is SFP - a) tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of the opponent (tick), b) lunges at an opponent ... using one or both legs (tick), c) excessive force (tick).
I won't be playing advantage here unless there's a clear opportunity to score a goal (as the good book says) and the only sanction can be a red card/dismissal.
 
Yampy said:
Sorry but I don't agree with you on this. It comes across as far, far too lenient for such a challenge. After reading the OP, to my eyes this is SFP - a) tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of the opponent (tick), b) lunges at an opponent ... using one or both legs (tick), c) excessive force (tick).
I won't be playing advantage here unless there's a clear opportunity to score a goal (as the good book says) and the only sanction can be a red card/dismissal.
Click to expand...

I agree in part, the reason i have gone yellow is because he was so far away from his opponent so he is not actually endangering his safety, as the OP said "He missed the player with the ball so much he didnt even need to move out of the way to avoid the tackle."
 
Advantage, with a caution for dangerous play when the ball is next dead would be my discipline.

If it was a long jump style challenge then the colour would change as would advantage- unless he is about to strike the ball into the back of the net.
 
He says he clearly misses him and he doesn't have to deviate his run therefore there is no endangerment...he doesn't say about the intensity of the challenge were both legs straight out studs showing or what the time span is between the challenge and the other player passing by him. If you give a red card for a no contact challenge other than a punch or headbutt where there is clear intention of VC. Maybe it's a case of you have to be there but given there was no contact - no deviation or impediment of the player I stand by my original post.

If a player runs across a pitch and does a big slide two feet in the air after scoring a goal are you red carding for SFP...wise up!

Yampy said:
a) tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of the opponent (tick), b) lunges at an opponent ... using one or both legs (tick), c) excessive force (tick).
Click to expand...
a) he didn't have to move out of the way no endangerment .....players safety not in anyway at risk
b) lunges at an opponent - where does it say that? Stupid tackle?
c) excessive force - where does it say that?

On the back of this when a goalkeeper runs out to punch a ball and misses it do you send him of for violent conduct or SFP?
 
Last edited:
A Freethinker said:
He says he clearly misses him and he doesn't have to deviate his run therefore there is no endangerment...he doesn't say about the intensity of the challenge were both legs straight out studs showing or what the time span is between the challenge and the other player passing by him. If you give a red card for a no contact challenge other than a punch or headbutt where there is clear intention of VC. Maybe it's a case of you have to be there but given there was no contact - no deviation or impediment of the player I stand by my original post.

If a player runs across a pitch and does a big slide two feet in the air after scoring a goal are you red carding for SFP...wise up!


a) he didn't have to move out of the way no endangerment .....players safety not in anyway at risk
b) lunges at an opponent - where does it say that? Stop tackle?
c) excessive force - where does it say that?

On the back of this when a goalkeeper runs out to punch a ball and misses it do you send him of for violent conduct or SFP?
Click to expand...

The two scenarios you have used to compare are terrible examples.

The OP says he jumped into the challenge with both feet and that it effected his match control. Reading between the lines it sounds as if this challenge was certainly lunging and sounds like excessive force, if it was just a wild slide then it would not of effected match control in anyway would it?

Of course you have to be there to get the full picture but we were not.
 
A Freethinker said:
a) he didn't have to move out of the way no endangerment .....players safety not in anyway at risk
b) lunges at an opponent - where does it say that? Stop tackle?
c) excessive force - where does it say that?
Click to expand...
OMG, you are a bit *****ly this morning.
zarathustra said:
A player jumps into a tackle with both feet
Click to expand...

It reads like a tackle or challenge was made and I don't see the definition of SFP making any distinction about whether the tackle or challenge should make contact or even impede the player. It also reads like an action that endangers, it reads like a lunge at an opponent and reads like excessive force.

All the above I would consider when assessing SFP.
 
Cheshire Ref said:
The two scenarios you have used to compare are terrible examples.

The OP says he jumped into the challenge with both feet and that it effected his match control. Reading between the lines it sounds as if this challenge was certainly lunging and sounds like excessive force, if it was just a wild slide then it would not of effected match control in anyway would it?

Of course you have to be there to get the full picture but we were not.
Click to expand...

zarathustra said:
A player jumps into a tackle with both feet, completely missing the man and the ball.
Click to expand...
So a keeper challenges for a ball which he misses but throws a punch with an attacker in the vicinity what is the difference between that and a lunge, which doesn't affect the player in ANY way? Explain your logic?

zarathustra said:
certainly damaged my match control (with one player who wasn't involved in the challenge),
Click to expand...
Match control with one player who wasn't involved in the challenge? had it been a serious incident or KMI then I think more than one player would have been complaining?

I guess it is one of those YHTBT scenarios.
 
Paul March said:
Advantage, with a caution for dangerous play when the ball is next dead would be my discipline.

If it was a long jump style challenge then the colour would change as would advantage- unless he is about to strike the ball into the back of the net.
Click to expand...
Although if you want to caution for dangerous play, you're entitled to use the advantage law and stop play to administer a caution unless the player advances to a better position.
 
Yampy said:
OMG, you are a bit *****ly this morning.
It reads like a tackle or challenge was made and I don't see the definition of SFP making any distinction about whether the tackle or challenge should make contact or even impede the player. It also reads like an action that endangers, it reads like a lunge at an opponent and reads like excessive force.
All the above I would consider when assessing SFP.
Click to expand...

Goal keeper goes to punch a ball and misses? endangering numerous players including his own defenders, it's a challenge for the ball contact or not? It endangers players? And potentially excessive force? Red card SFP wise to fxck up! It doesn't say anywhere in the LOTG that keepers can punch the ball?!
 
Cheshire Ref said:
The two scenarios you have used to compare are terrible examples.

The OP says he jumped into the challenge with both feet and that it effected his match control. Reading between the lines it sounds as if this challenge was certainly lunging and sounds like excessive force, if it was just a wild slide then it would not of effected match control in anyway would it?

Of course you have to be there to get the full picture but we were not.
Click to expand...
I get your point of view but you know what its like, as soon as a "two footed" challenge is made players get up in arms and want action and or retribution. There could easily have been an impact to match control without it neccessarily being a red card as the OP says he did nothing at all and once you let one go etc. Etc.

My 2 pence is advantage and yellow.

What I am not 100% on is if you stop play what the restart is. There's a case for an indirect free kick is there not?:

"An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner"

"
Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes
preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

The "and includes" bit, does anyone interpret that to mean it has to for playing in a dangerous manner? If so direct FK. If not then Id be saying sounds like playing in a dangerous manner and an indirect restart!
 
Can I just point out that the OP didn't feel that there was any reaction required immediately the challenge happened which to me indicates that it wasn't SFP!
 
A Freethinker said:
Goal keeper goes to punch a ball and misses? endangering numerous players including his own defenders, it's a challenge for the ball contact or not? It endangers players? And potentially excessive force? Red card SFP wise to fxck up! It doesn't say anywhere in the LOTG that keepers can punch the ball?!
Click to expand...
Thank you for the advice. You're welcome to the last word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top